8 Salazar vs. Achacoso
8 Salazar vs. Achacoso
*
G.R. No. 81510. March 14, 1990.
________________
* EN BANC.
146
SARMIENTO, J.:
This concerns the validity of the power of the Secretary of
Labor to issue warrants of arrest and seizure under Article
38 of the Labor Code, prohibiting illegal recruitment.
147
“HORTY SALAZAR
No. 615 R.O. Santos St.
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila
148
“Gentlemen:
1. Our client has not been given any prior notice or hearing,
hence the Closure and Seizure Order No. 1205 dated
November 3, 1987 violates “due process of law”
guaranteed under Sec. 1, Art. III, of the Philippine
Constitution.
2. Your acts also violate Sec. 2, Art. III of the Philippine
Constitution which guarantees right of the people “to be
secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature
and for any purpose.”
3. The premises invaded by your Mr. Ferdi Marquez and five
(5) others (including 2 policemen) are the private
residence of the Salazar family, and the entry, search as
well as the
149
VOL. 183, MARCH 14, 1990 149
Salazar vs. Achacoso
it is only
3
a judge who may issue warrants of search and
arrest.
_______________
150
x x x x x x x x x
But it must be emphasized here and now that what has just
been described is the state of the law as it was in September,
1985. The law has since been altered. No longer does the mayor
have at this time the power to conduct preliminary investigations,
much less issue orders of arrest. Section 143 of the Local
Government Code, conferring this power on the mayor has been
abrogated, rendered functus officio by the 1987 Constitution
which took effect on February 2, 1987, the date of its ratification
by the Filipino people. Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution pertinently provides that “no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and
the person or things to be seized.” The constitutional proscription
has thereby been manifested that thenceforth, the function of
determining probable cause and issuing, on the basis thereof,
warrants of arrest or search warrants, may be validly exercised
only by judges, this being evidenced by the elimination in the
present Constitution of the phrase, “such other responsible officer
as may be authorized by law” found in the counterpart provision
of said 1973 Constitution, who, aside from judges, might conduct
preliminary
4
investigations and issue warrants of arrest or search
warrants.
_____________
151
(b) The Minister of Labor and Employment shall have the power
to cause the arrest and detention of such non-licensee or non-
holder of authority if after proper investigation it is determined
that his activities constitute a danger to national security and
public order or will lead to further exploitation of job-seekers. The
Minister shall order the closure of companies, establishment and
entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of workers for
overseas7 employment, without having been licensed or authorized
to do so.
_______________
152
The above has now been etched as Article 38, paragraph (c)
of the Labor Code.
The decrees in question, it is well to note, stand as the
dying vestiges of authoritarian rule in its twilight
moments.
We reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not being a
judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants.
Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial
process. To that extent, we declare Article 38, paragraph
(c), of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and
effect.
The9
Solicitor General’s reliance on the case of Morano v.
Vivo is not well-taken. Vivo involved a deportation case,
governed by Section 69 of the defunct Revised
Administrative Code and by Section 37 of the Immigration
Law. We have ruled that in deportation cases, an arrest (of
an undesirable alien) ordered by the President or his duly
authorized representatives, in order
10
to carry out a final
decision of deportation is valid. It is valid, however,
because of the recognized supremacy of the Executive
11
in
matters involving foreign affairs. We have held:
x x x x x x x x x
The State has the inherent power to deport undesirable aliens
(Chuoco Tiaco vs. Forbes, 228 U.S. 549, 57 L. Ed. 960, 40 Phil.
1122,
______________
153
_______________
12 Supra, 21-22.
13 Rollo, id., 15.
154
x x x x x x x x x
Another factor which makes the search warrants under
consideration constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the
nature of general warrants. The search warrants describe the
articles sought to be seized in this wise:
For the guidance of the bench and the bar, we reaffirm the
following principles:
Petition granted.
——o0o——
______________
14 Burgos, Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP No. 64261, December 26, 198 4, 133
SCRA 800, 814-816.
156